asiaphobia is us having to tell my (japanese immigrant to america) grandfather (who does speak english but prefers talking in japanese cause it's his native language) to stop talking in japanese during 2020 cause we were afraid he was going to get attacked (a lot of asian people were at the time for "causing covid" or some stupid thing)
his response was that it's chinese people that were getting the accusations, and while that was obviously very terrible, we are japanese and therefore are not subject to this. grandfather. if someone is racist enough to attack someone for speaking chinese they are racist enough to not check which east asian language you are speaking. like i know they sound different. however not to a racist they don't.
thankfully nothing ever actually ended up happening to him, but i remember being genuinely scared that it would
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
β Live Streamingβ Interactive Chatβ Private Showsβ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch β’ No registration required β’ HD streaming
If you donβt know what prompted this post, give thanks. ππ»
Iβm not involved in The Shireβs multi-post she-said/she-said conversation today, but since someone chose to insert my blog name into it, Iβm choosing to comment on it. #GoodTimes
Just like this Tumblr blog:
and this Tumblr blog are maintained by two distinct people unknown to one another:
This Twitter page:
and this Instagram page are maintained by two distinct people unknown to one another:
πππππ and πππππ
As for Caitony, wellβ¦
This is caitony on Twitter:
and these are the caitony pages on Instagram:
Neither Caitony nor caitony has anything to do with the she-said/she-said conversation.
Note to BCRβs Anon: How does BIF really feel about C? Ask meβ¦
Remember when it was just another day of misidentification and misinformation in the Tumblr neighbourhood?
Shadows of the Mesozoic: The Persistent Myth of Living Pterosaurs
The idea of living pterodactyls in the modern world is captivating. It is fueled by cryptozoological claims and anecdotal sightings. There is also an enduring fascination with these prehistoric flying reptiles. However, despite persistent reports and imaginative depictions, the scientific consensus remains firm. Pterodactyls, along with all other non-avian dinosaurs, went extinct approximately 66β¦
Publication day! Here is my new article in the Rijksmuseum Bulletin: βA New Identification and Source for Anselmus BoΓ«tius de Boodtβs βBrazilian Coatiββ
The Rijksmuseum Bulletin is the quarterly, peer-reviewed journal presenting scholarly articles that contribute to historical and art-histori
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
β Live Streamingβ Interactive Chatβ Private Showsβ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch β’ No registration required β’ HD streaming
Not everything is that well with this portrait and I am not going to pretend otherwise. I marked it for you what is wrong:
(Pink-suspicious, orange-original outlines, red-altered, dark red-physically impossible for those layers to exist simultanously!)
This is crazy! What the hell is going on?! ...Let's find out.
I hope this will fit single post(tumblr has limits regarding amount of pictures you can post.)
Now, about the painting.The amount of alterations I can spot, is disturbing.
The headwear is mixture of netherlandish subtype of french hood, and english gable hood, as if somebody put them together:
(my photoshoping skills are not good enough to make them 100% accurate, but you get the idea...)
Yes, in France and I think also in Netherlands you can find some examples of frontlets on french hood-in cca 1480s and early 1490s. Afterwards...nope. And this one...has the bejewelled part surounding face typical for english gable hood ...and I've never seen it in historical examples of these combining.
And in closeup it's obvious the layers cannot even physically fit together...Literally impossible.
Because these frontlets have black base upon which decorative part sits...and it's obvious the fronlet is supposed to go ABOVE the veil french hood..., so french hood should go UNDER it...but the pattern on french hood goes ABOVE the base of frontlet. It's literally impossible for that to happen simultanously.
One or both have to be altered. But which? Idk!
Futhermore there is dark shadow behind the current edge of veil, which indicates the outer edge of veil was moved, making it more narrow.
But if it was wider it'd be consistent with both netherlandish subtype of french hood and english gable hood:
Neither was that flat at the back. And neither would be worn by Maria. Furthermore, the netherlandish headwear is of style of copies based upon her sister Joanna's headwear. It's not historically accurate style. The gable hood...well, in form which we see now, it is also not historically accurate. Yet at same timethere is bigger level of realism than I'd expect if it was completely made up.
Hence I started to suspect that actual portrait was inspiration for this peace.
If we look at the portrait further we can tell that outer edge of dress was also moved, making shoulders more narrow and more femine, and one shoulder has no ermine, hence likely ermine area was extended.
Imo the high of neckline is also altered, I am highly suspicious of it...because even in England and Netherlands it was not worn so high, in Iberia absolutely not! This neckline would only make sense in very cold countries. In Scandinavia, Moscowy etc.
But there are more things I am suspicious about.
Little detail on veil of french hood(occasionally hapens, but not much in 16th century)...anyway it is probably just minor decorative add-on. But this part of cloth of gold looks photoshopped:
These bits, the way pattern is similiar...nearly identical, looks photoshopped:
In program which I use(photopea)...there is tool which allows you to copy the pattern and move it around ...and then you can create things like this. You'd need to just play with it bit afterwards, to blend it in...and in one spot it's not even done.
This is very disturbing for me. Especially given what wikipedia says about the painting.
Date of creation is XXI meaning 21. Like 21st century? Is it just modern creation made in computer?
... I created one such fake for April fools post... and I too deliberately played with shadows to make it look like it was altered...
I cannot rule this possibility, but it could also be case of bad photo, or bad printing. Because the wikipedia also says that source of image is a book called Infantas de Espanha, Rainhas em Portugal:
So could it be that there was so problem in printing process? Or something went wrong with photo?
Or...that the portrait itself is real...but it had some ugly paint loss and they decided to fix it in photoshopp to make it more pleasing to look at the book?
All of these are possible.
Additoonally, the arm on right(from our POV) seems to be moved in such position as if away from the painting...which could indicate it was originally larger.
And while the ribbon being held is not that impossible, fact that it goes over the ledge suggest it is not an accurate detai, but alteration.
More details I am suspicious about are all in same area around the 2nd hand.
These decorative round things...if they are supposed to be pearls...they look nothing like the one on headwear, yet if we mark their positions, they look as if trying to copy that pattern:
Furthermore the shadows are bit off in this area. There are parts which are lighter in colour...which could be if originally there was ermine edge to the dress...which was overpainted. Unfortunately I can't tell from these what shape exactly it'd have...
So after seeing all of this...what is my opinion on this?
I cannot confirm the portrait is real. But...I don't think anybody would be able to create this in photoshop without having something real to work with. I think there is portrait like this...and the level of alterations...the oddities...suggest it has been altered a while ago.
I cannot rule out photoshopped was used in part of it, but I think rest exist in real.
Does it mean it is accurate or that it is Maria? ...No, and given the level of alterations, it's not likely the head was spared...
On occasion though it happens. For example portrait of Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia, Archduchess of Austria(b.1566)
who is supposed to wear the Franciscan habit of a Poor Clare(like on left), but in portrait (on right) somebody added lady Margaret Beaufort's headwear(probably) and changed some other details too.
Could it be the case of Maria's portrait too?
Well...in theory yes. Somebody could add english and netherlandish headwear to her portrait.
Could altered possibly heck out of the dress too, thus removing Iberian fashion from Iberian portrait.
Could photoshop it(possibly.)
... Or perhaps somebody created new portrait based upon Maria's portrait and Joanna's and Elizabeth of York's? (Puzzle of 3.)
Or some other option.
The face, the coat of arm, text and M on book could have been added to make it clearer that it is Maria...or could have been used to make it Maria. WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW!
...BUT we cannot play ostrich...and pretend that everything is fine with this portrait. Because it is not.
And if we remove all things which are weird, what is left of this portrait? A hand?!
(I didn't know how far ermine extended, so i left it like this)
...Hold on...
You've got to be kidding me. I recognize it. I recognize the hand!
...Well, not this hand but the style of the hand...the way the fingers are drawn/painted.
No way...no it can't be...Let me check.
...Maybe it could be. I have speculated there was one...and it'd make perfect sense. Wide shoulders, hand across chest, cloth of gold with ermine...the reddish girdle...
the ledge...the round top. ...I should have seen it front first glance!
The only real problem is that is facing the wrong way! It's flipped from the normal position.
But if you flip it back it's obvious. It's same outfit as in Whitehall Mural:
Even the reddish/pinkish girtle!
The the other hand is of Henry VII, in drawing which I speculated could have been by Wewyck's workshop(although it is not confirmed):
And I have also said it's likely there was once Elizabeth's portrait which matched his. With one hand across chest and the other extended downwards bit to the side!
This could be altered portrait of Elizabeth of York...with yes, some major alterations...but it's not the most common image of hers...it looks to be based upon rare image of her, of which we have no copies or no good copies of...
Yes it is facing wrong way...but it's not 100% rule.
Which could mean...that we're looking at altered original.
Which tbh if we consider it could be Elizabeth, wouldn't need to be even altered that much(and I didn't need to remove that much), and majority of the changes would be done to hide her thicker neck and wider shoulders.
...You know I have been suspecting certain spanish artworks to be based upon English royal portraits...but I thought...how would they get hands on it...well maybe Henry VII and catholic monarchs were exchanging portraits of their family members...
And if so...there might be more english portraits waiting to rediscovered on iberian peninsula...
But I could of course be wrong...but none of this points really to Iberian peninsula. It's too toward N-W fashion.
What do you think? Am I correct or am I chasing shadows?
Entomologists have been dealing with bug misidentification for as long as we've induldged the brain's drive to make nice neat categories for things. Some of the oldest misidentifications are still on record from antiquity (think "bees" and rotting flesh), which still happen to this day. So many flies, beetles, hell even a few moths, get mistaken for bees and other wasps. This is pretty much what evolution selected for anyway: Big lumbering mammals with nimble grubbing digits learned pretty quick that the black and yellow stripey flying things can pack a punch if threatened, and sure enough, despite not being equiped to also pack said punch other black and yellow stripey flying things also didn't die as frequently, though very far in relation to wasps. So it is a commong and easy sort of astonishment to provide laypeople with knowledge that not everything that is black and yellow striped is in fact a wasp, and it is always hilarious to find mistakes in news articles and picture books of "bees" that are, in fact, flies.
Another common misidentification is dragonflies and antlions. A lot of people only encounter antlions in their larval stage, as sort of Sarlacc-beasts hiding at the bottom of the sand pit. If you grew up with sandy soil or someplace like, you might have passed some time in childhood throwing ants into the pit to watch the antlion jaws snap them up. The adults, however, look much like giant lacewings (which to the same order they belong). They often don't fly about unless they must, which their long membraneous wings folded back over their long slender abdomen. Their wings often have hairs (like moths, which they are somewhat closely related) and are sometimes pointed, with the hindwings just slightly different shaped, with the hingwing smaller than the forewing. However, when put in a collection, their wings are often spread, and they superficially look very similar to dragonflies (whose wings are always spread open, the hindwing often larger than the forewing) or danselflies (whose wings are [almost] always closed like a book and similiar sized). The easy give away are the antennae though: Dragonfly antennae are pretty small, while antlions are long and distinct.
A lot of art confuses antlions for dragonflies, possibly because they have an aesthetic slenderness to them while also possessing the visible antennae, while most people know insects should have. I see antlions declared dragonflies in home decor and tattoos, which never fails to make me giggle.
This time now, I was struck unawares. I was completely unprepared for it.
I'm home sick with COVID, indulging in some Doctor Who fanfiction aka Outlander, and as I start the thrid season, the "dragonfly in amber" comes back around for the plot point it is.
Except it's not a dragonfly.
It's a fucking antlion.
The hilarity of it temporarily cured my COVID.
It does not matter, necessarily, to the plot, what kind of bug it is. Once could argue that this old bug trapped in amber is symbolism for time travel, and a migratory, far-flying dragonfly would better represent the journies of the protagonists in their drives to always find each other, for which a fairly sessile antlion would undermine a bit. Dragonflies, too, are sometimes considered to be human souls off to their afterlife, and as far as I know, no such similar belief are attached to antlions.
I find it more amusing, however, how much identification of wild plants was relied upon for various plots, and this was such an easy misidentification to make.
Anyway that is your friendly neighborhood bug lady's COVID induced info dump for the day.
